TBBK vs WAFD Stock Comparison
The Bancorp, Inc. vs WaFd, Inc.
TBBK leads
TBBK leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from WAFD.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TBBK, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Bancorp, Inc.
WaFd, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TBBK over WAFD, 55 versus 52 as of Sep 5, 2026. TBBK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while WAFD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TBBK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TBBK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. TBBK lead: Reversed — WAFD led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TBBK now leads by 3.
Compare The Bancorp, Inc. and WaFd, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare TBBK and WAFD against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience15%55 vs 82WAFD +27
- Quality30%72 vs 47TBBK +25
- Momentum25%42 vs 31TBBK +11
- Value30%48 vs 58WAFD +10
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TBBK. TBBK’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; WAFD keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -11
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TBBK's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TBBK and WAFD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TBBK (The Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
WAFD (WaFd, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
TBBKTBBK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TBBKTBBK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WAFDWAFD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
TBBKTBBK on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
WAFDWAFD on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
TBBKTBBK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | TBBK | WAFD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.6% | +4.7% | TBBK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7% | +10.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TBBK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | TBBK | revenue growth 24.1% vs 3.4%; EPS growth 2.1% vs 2.3%; TTM ROE 32.3% vs 8.5%; gross margin 70.4% vs 54.9%; operating margin 40.7% vs 23.6% |
| Valuation | WAFD | Value 48 vs 58 |
| Technicals | TBBK | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs -2.5%; vs 200-day 8.2% vs 5.8% |
| Risk Resilience | WAFD | Risk Resilience 55 vs 82 |
| Analyst expectations | TBBK | Target upside 27.6% vs 4.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TBBK and WAFD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on TBBK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4TBBK lead: Reversed — WAFD led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TBBK now leads by 3.
- Today
- TBBK +3
- 55 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- WAFD +1
- 51 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- WAFD +3
- 59 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 63 vs 63
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when TBBK moved ahead of WAFD.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.49%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.44%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TBBK leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.28%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.89%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1WAFD closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to TBBK's edge.
- 2WAFD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TBBK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
TBBK leads on balance| Metric | TBBK | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.1% | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.1% | 2.3% |
| Gross margin | 70.4% | 54.9% |
| Operating margin | 40.7% | 23.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32.3% | 8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.36 | 1.1 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TBBK | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.8% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.6% | 2.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27% | 17.1% |
| Year to date | -1% | 13.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | 15.6% |
Technicals
TBBK has the stronger structure| Metric | TBBK | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.6 | 28 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | -2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.2% | 5.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.8% | 14.3% |
Risk
WAFD is the more resilient| Metric | TBBK | WAFD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.15 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.2 | 0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 0.77 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -12.9% |
| Current drawdown | -16.8% | -7.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 23.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TBBK or WAFD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TBBK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 55 against WAFD's 52. The edge comes from quality and momentum. WAFD is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is TBBK or WAFD the better buy right now?
TBBK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TBBK over WAFD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WAFD leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; TBBK leads Quality by 25 points; TBBK leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TBBK or WAFD?
Analyst price targets imply +27.6% upside for TBBK and +4.7% for WAFD, so the Street currently favors TBBK. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, TBBK or WAFD?
WAFD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WAFD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, TBBK or WAFD?
TBBK on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, TBBK or WAFD?
TBBK on the Momentum factor, by 11 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, TBBK or WAFD?
WAFD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WAFD on Risk Resilience, by 27 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is TBBK more profitable than WAFD?
TBBK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 70.4% vs 54.9%; operating margin 40.7% vs 23.6%; ttm roe 32.3% vs 8.5%.
Is TBBK's lead over WAFD getting stronger or weaker?
TBBK lead: Reversed — WAFD led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TBBK now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when TBBK moved ahead of WAFD.
What would change the TBBK vs WAFD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WAFD closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to TBBK's edge; WAFD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TBBK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about TBBK and WAFD?
TBBK: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WAFD: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on TBBK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WAFD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TBBK and WAFD with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.